RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NUMBER: BC-2011-02330 COUNSEL: NONE HEARING DESIRED: NO _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT: Her reenlistment date be changed from 20 June 2011 to 3 June 2011 so she can be eligible for a Zone C Reenlistment Bonus under the Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) program. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT: She attempted to start the reenlistment process in April of 2011 when she was told her date of separation (DOS) was in June 2012 rather than May 2012. This information was in error and her DOS was subsequently corrected to 5 May 2012. When she again attempted to reenlist, she was told she could not reenlist unless she had a service directed retainability reason. While going through retraining at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi, she was told she would be eligible to reenlist once she completed training and arrived at her new duty station. She was later told this information was incorrect as she needed to be within 90 days of her DOS in order to reenlist. No other options to reenlist before this 90-day window were available to consider. She subsequently decided to transfer education benefits (TEB) under the Post 9/11 GI Bill to her son, but was told she needed to reenlist in order to transfer her benefits. In compliance, she reenlisted on 20 June 2011. This date was 15 days beyond her eligibility window for a Zone C SRB. Had she been made aware that her TEB reenlistment could have qualified her for an SRB, she would have requested the TEB in May 2011 and reenlisted on 3 June 2011 in order to qualify for the bonus. She attempted to resolve this matter with the Air Force Personnel Center, but was told she would have to appeal to the AFBCMR. In support of her appeal, the applicant provides copies of several electronic communications. The applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A. _________________________________________________________________ STATEMENT OF FACTS: The applicant is currently serving in the Regular Air Force in the grade of technical sergeant (E-6). On 20 June 2011, she reenlisted for a period of five years and ten months. The remaining relevant facts, extracted from the applicant’s master personnel records, are contained in the evaluation by the Air Force office of primary responsibility at Exhibit C. _________________________________________________________________ AIR FORCE EVALUATION: AFPC/DPSOA recommends denial. DPSOA states that it is their opinion that the applicant was fully aware of TEB and the retainability associated with the program since she had two previous TEB requests terminated due to her failure to get the retainability she acknowledged was required. On 18 August 2009, the applicant initiated her first request for TEB. Also on that date, the Total Force Service Center-SA (TFSC-SA), advised the applicant that her application was received and briefed her on the associated Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) of four years which will expire on 4 August 2013. She was further instructed to contact her military personnel squadron (MPS) to obtain the retainability and the attached Statement of Understanding (SOU). On 28 September 2009, the applicant signed the SOU and attached it to the case file. Also, on this date, the TFSA-SA acknowledged receipt of the SOU and reminded the applicant of the retainability requirement. On 30 October 2009, her request for TEB transfer was closed by the TFSC-SA because of her failure to obtain the retainability. On 19 November 2009, the applicant initiated her second TEB request. Again, the TFSC- SA requested she complete the required retainability within 30 days (by extending or reenlisting through 16 November 2013) and requested she also complete the SOU. Once again, the applicant failed to complete the retainability and/or SOU; therefore, her application for TEB was closed on 8 January 2010. On 8 June 2011, the applicant initiated her third TEB request and finally completed the SOU and associated retainability. Her TEB was subsequently approved on 30 June 2011. Execution of TEB is a service-directed reason and each applicant chooses when he/she will exercise this entitlement. DPSOA indicates the applicant’s contention that she was not fully aware of the retainability for TEB and, had she known, she would have done so, is without merit. She clearly demonstrated her knowledge of the TEB program and retainability requirement by previously processing two TEB requests. The third and final request, which was approved when she met the retainability, was not initiated until after the applicant’s Zone C SRB eligibility window had passed. She was provided two previous opportunities to qualify for the TEB (with or without SRB entitlement) and she chose not to execute those opportunities. In addition, she had sufficient time to make her third TEB request (with qualifying SRB) before closure of her Zone C, SRB (4 June 2011). The complete AFPC/DPSOA evaluation is at Exhibit B. _________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION: A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 29 July 2011 for review and response within 30 days (Exhibit C). As of this date, this office has received no response. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT: 1. The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations. 2. The application was timely filed. 3. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or an injustice. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with the opinion and recommendation of the Air Force office of primary responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice. Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application. _________________________________________________________________ THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT: The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application. _________________________________________________________________ The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02330 in Executive Session on 6 March 2012, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603: The following documentary evidence was considered for AFBCMR Docket Number BC-2011-02330: Exhibit A. DD Form 149, dated 23 Jun 11, w/atchs. Exhibit B. Letter, AFPC/DPSOA, dated 25 Jul 11. Exhibit C. Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 29 Jul 11.